"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

Quote:A small group of Democratic National Committee members has privately begun gauging support for a plan to potentially weaken Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and head off a brokered convention.

In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.

“I do believe we should re-open the rules. I hear it from others as well,” one DNC member said in a text message last week to William Owen, a DNC member from Tennessee who does not support re-opening the rules.

Owen, who declined to identify the member, said the member added in a text that “It would be hard though. We could force a meeting or on the floor.”

Even proponents of the change acknowledge it is all but certain not to gain enough support to move past these initial conversations. But the talks reveal the extent of angst that many establishment Democrats are feeling on the eve of the Iowa caucuses.

I read earlier that due to their caucus format making it difficult for working people or people with kids to vote, voter turnout in Iowa for their primaries averages about 16%. (Nevada also uses a caucus)

Just something to keep in mind as pundits lose their minds over whatever happens next week. These first primaries can definitely help a waning campaign, or hurt a frontrunner, but otherwise they're not very representative of the average voter. So reading too much into them would be a mistake.

Quote:Stacey Abrams, the former Georgia gubernatorial nominee whose name has been floated as a possible Democratic vice presidential pick, predicted in an interview published Friday that she will become president within the next two decades.

After Abrams said she “absolutely” believed Americans would send a black woman to the Oval Office in the next 20 years, journalist Clare Malone of FiveThirtyEight asked: “Do you think they’ll elect you?”

The declaration from Abrams, a former Georgia state representative, adds to the political intrigue and professional speculation surrounding one of the Democratic Party’s most rapidly ascending stars. Abrams, who lost a close 2018 race to be governor of Georgia, has been mentioned by several White House hopefuls as a potential running mate.

Prior to her declaration Friday that she will seek the presidency before 2040, Abrams said in a March interview that 2028 “would be the earliest I would be ready to stand for president." In a subsequent tweet, however, she wrote that “2020 is definitely on the table” — a run she has since ruled out.

In August, Abrams announced she would not enter the current Democratic primary and would instead focus her efforts on combating voter suppression and boosting participation in the 2020 census. But she also said in an interview that same month that she would be “honored to be considered by any nominee” as a vice presidential contender.

Quote:“Disability rights was a bipartisan effort historically, but the Trump administration has broken new ground in awfulness,” Ne’eman observed. “Norms that have long been accepted as bipartisan, such as community inclusion and inclusive education, are coming under attack.”

He added: “Disability advocates used to play a relatively small role in electoral politics. Due in part to a growing radicalization in the Republican party, disability advocates are now playing a much larger role, including and especially in primaries.”

If something like Sanders’ plan had been enacted in 2009, my family would not have spent years on a waiting list for services such as respite care and financial help with medical equipment and building accommodations. We might have moved to that red state when my husband got an attractive job offer. Under the Sanders plan, Edmund’s educational needs would be funded in any state.

I gave up on an academic career path due to my caregiving responsibilities. Under Sanders’ plan, I would have had access to caregiving assistance to continue that career, or I could have been compensated for my caregiving labor.

Think about the potential economic benefits—not only of a hiring boom in home care workers, but some current caregivers suddenly freed to enter the workforce or start businesses.

If Sanders’ plan were enacted now, Edmund could, as he should, attend the same school as his brothers, and not be bused to a school exclusive to disabled kids. I could rest assured that, even as an adult, even after my death, he will always participate in the life of his community.

Zooming out to other people and families, the Sanders plan would also make it illegal to pay disabled workers less than minimum wage. It would prioritize community-based mental health care to prevent mentally ill people from getting mired in the criminal justice system.

There would be no more asset and income restrictions on receiving services—which would also mean that disabled people could get married without penalty. SSI payments would rise to 125 percent of poverty level.

Sanders repeatedly provides for disabled people to be in positions of power over disability policy-making. This is especially important in the case of disability because disability advocacy can get commandeered by family members and caregivers of disabled people. Family members of disabled people tend to prioritize safety over autonomy. They often prize curing or preventing disability over accommodating it.

Sanders’ autism policy is an example of what happens when it is disabled advocates, rather than their family members, who are the primary architects of plans. It shifts funding in autism research more toward services for adults, and ensures that autistic adults have greater control over planning and execution of policies that affect their lives.

Sanders’ plan has elements in common with those of the other Democrats, especially Warren’s plan, though hers is less detailed. Both Sanders’ and Warren’s plans offer a greater emphasis on community inclusion than the other proposals.

With all the Democrats’ plans—on any topic—it can be hard to see what laws would actually be enacted, especially if a Democrat were elected president and the Senate remained in GOP hands. Sanders offers a list of executive actions he could take that would greatly influence disability policy regardless of the makeup of Congress.

You're missing my point and FiveThirtyEight's point. FiveThirtyEight offers a breakdown between big donors and small donors for each candidate. It definitely makes Steyer & Bloomberg look ridiculous. And it looks good for Sanders and Warren so I'm not trying to take anything away from Sanders. My point is simply: Cite your sources. I would like to know where it's coming from.

I think these screen captures and giant (Dildi? Is there a plural?) are just the next step in the JJ Abrams online adventure series. Very slyly played, Bitches Leave.-Tom Fuchs

Hey, I'm feeling pretty good about my "Iowa doesn't matter!" posts!
I still don't care about Iowa... except that now I reeeeeally hope Buttigeig finishes 4th, after declaring victory. That would be sooooo funny.

Wouldn't worry about turnout in the quadrennial clusterfuck that is the Iowa Caucuses. Aside from them being inherently disenfranchising and thus traditionally having a pretty pathetic turnout, there were reportedly a lot of undecided voters in Iowa, who may have just decided they didn't feel strongly enough about any single candidate to make a decision and will just let others decide and show up in November.

But honestly, the only good thing about the Iowa Caucuses is that they're not really first-past-the-post voting. It's time for that particular "institution" to die (and for at a minimum South Carolina or whoever to vote on the same day). But I don't imagine Iowa will do so, since they revel in how "special" they are in regards to all this.

(02-04-2020, 07:34 AM)jmacq1 Wrote: Wouldn't worry about turnout in the quadrennial clusterfuck that is the Iowa Caucuses. Aside from them being inherently disenfranchising and thus traditionally having a pretty pathetic turnout, there were reportedly a lot of undecided voters in Iowa, who may have just decided they didn't feel strongly enough about any single candidate to make a decision and will just let others decide and show up in November.

But honestly, the only good thing about the Iowa Caucuses is that they're not really first-past-the-post voting. It's time for that particular "institution" to die (and for at a minimum South Carolina or whoever to vote on the same day). But I don't imagine Iowa will do so, since they revel in how "special" they are in regards to all this.

Just let other states move their elections to earlier and watch the DNC try to pull the bullshit they did in 2008 in Michigan. If enough states do it, the DNC wouldn't have the balls to punish all of them.

"You want a vision of the future?Imagine a boot stomping on a human face.....forever."